I did find a copy of our 1994 charge from Council along with the 1994
letter from Heidi to Council. It is included as Section II.

The following modifications were made at the last meeting to respond
to Chris and Sandy regarding creekshed-based planning, and climatic change,
diversity and control of invasive species. New language is underlined.

1) The following additions directed to creekshed-based planning;

We have incorporated creekshed planning as one of the first items in
the Executive Summary and in section V. General Description and Protection
Measures
primary goals, and also added it as a strategy under the Huron River
and Its Tributaries. We have included map information on the location of
the watersheds.

In Executive Summary under Huron River and Tributaries:

1) Work with local and regional partners to
implement creekshed-based planning, environmental analysis and coordinated
programs to protect the
Huron River.

In section V. General Description and Protection Measures primary goals:
1. Water Quality: Work with local and regional partners to implement
creekshed-based planning, environmental analysis and coordinated programs
to
protect the Huron River. Greatly diminish the quantities of pollutants,
nutrients, and sediments reaching the Huron River. Eliminate sewage
line overflows to
the River in storm events. Greatly reduce erosion of banks in
each of the City’s tributary waterways. Greatly increase the number
and effectiveness of storm
water storage facilities/flood capacity, throughout the City.
Increase the opportunities for storm water to infiltrate soils. Work
with neighboring River
communities to accomplish similar efforts. Solve the Allen’s
Creek flooding problem.

2) Addtions regarding climatic change, diversity and invasives:
We have added to the Executive Summary under Native Plant and Animal
Ecosystems

2) Plant landscapes to reflect the rich biodiversity
of the native landscape to protect against disease, and periods of flood,
drought or unusual periods of
prolonged high or low average temperatures.
4) Expand programs to control invasive species.

We have added to section V. General Description and Protection Measures
primary goals:
8. Climate Change: Work to anticipate the impacts of a changing
climate on the City’s important natural features, and take sensible action
to mitigate those
effects. Increase the diversity and distribution of native plants that
are adapted to the extremes of climate of the region. Continue membership
in the
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives and other
regional planning agencies that are developing strategies to respond to
drought, flood,
severe storms and other unusual climate.

Under Native Plants and Animals have added under Goals:
5. Reduce invasive species.
6. Increase the diversity and distribution of native plants that are
adapted to the extremes of climate of the region.

And under Strategies:
5. Plant landscapes to reflect the rich biodiversity of the native
landscape to protect against disease, and periods of flood, drought, severe
storms or unusual
periods of prolonged high or low average temperatures.
6. Expand programs to control or reduce invasive species and coordinate
programs with other public and private organizations.

The Michigan Land Use Leadership Council has been given the opportunity
to advise the Governor and the Legislature on a cooperative, common sense
approach to land use in Michigan. I fully support the role of the Council,
and I would like to thank Senator Brater and Representative Kolb for this
opportunity to comment on this critical and timely issue. The focus of
my remarks pertains to land use planning from a water resource protection
perspective. Washtenaw County will be providing more comprehensive comments
to the Council at a future date through our Department of Planning and
Environment.

In identifying trends, causes, and consequences of unmanaged growth
and the solutions to this staggering problem, there will be a number of
challenges to address. Among these are urban revitalization, agricultural
land preservation, transportation policy and intergovernmental coordination.
At the very onset of this effort, I would like to emphasize that the future
health and integrity of Michigan’s water resources are dependent on the
land use decisions we make today.

Land use and water resource protection cannot be separated. The way
in which the land within a watershed is developed and managed essentially
defines the health of its waterways. For this reason, the case for integrated
land use planning – for changing the way we currently do business – can
be made most cogently from the water resources protection perspective.

Watershed management, by definition, requires coordination of land use
planning, development standards, and resource protection strategies and
standards across community and political boundaries. Traditional fragmented
regulatory and management programs simply have not worked; waterways are
complex systems that must be managed through comprehensive ecological approaches.

Unfortunately, under out current structure, land use decisions and water
resource protection decisions are made independently by different units
of government and agencies, and at different levels of government. In order
to achieve watershed planning and management in Michigan, communities must
have enhanced legal tools, expanded and more accessible technical information,
and education about fundamental watershed management concepts. In addition,
new working relationships will be required, not only across community boundaries,
but also among state, regional and local agencies.

In this light, I would like to offer the following recommendations:

1. Legislative Enabling Authority for Watershed Planning and Management
Current enabling legislation for watershed organizations is relatively
weak and limiting. Watershed plans are often prepared with grant
funds, have no basis in law, and no funding mechanism for implementation.
Legislation that provides both a process and a funding mechanism for watershed
planning and plan implementation does not exist. This is a gap that
must be filled if Michigan is to achieve long-term protection of high quality
waterways and restoration of impaired systems.

House Bill 6131, introduced by Representative Kolb in the last legislative
session, and originally proposed as part of a set of comprehensive amendments
to Michigan’s Drain Code, would fill this gap in the state’s enabling legislation.
The legislation includes requirements that all local governments in a defined
watershed participate in development of plans and implementation strategies,
and determination of allocation of costs. It further provides mechanisms
for participation by all interest groups and the general public.

2. Economic Incentives for Watershed Planning and Management
In order to encourage local action for the creation of meaningful watershed
organizations, a strong network of positive incentives and possibly sanctions
should be enacted at the state and federal levels to promote and support
watershed planning. Otherwise, citizens and local community leaders may
be reluctant to pursue the creation of “another layer of government” with
any significant authority.

I recommend that local governments’ participation in a watershed management
initiative be a prerequisite to awarding any state-controlled funding that
has land use ramifications. Linking grant and low interest loan programs
to participation in watershed planning would provide a strong incentive
for local initiation of watershed plans and protection strategies, and
participation in their implementation.

State administered financial assistance programs should ensure that
aid is awarded consistent with local watershed plans. For example, state
funding to assist local governments with the purchase of open-space recreational
lands should be awarded based in part on the importance of the proposed
site to its watershed. Priority should be given to sites that serve critical
functions within a river system. Road improvements and community development
funds should be directed away from areas where more intense development
would be particularly deleterious (e.g. headwater and riparian areas).
State-initiated projects and activities (construction of facilities, acquisition
of lands, issuance of permits, etc.) also should be assessed from a watershed
perspective. To achieve this watershed-based coordination of state programs
and activities, an avenue that could be explored is a “State Watershed
Coordination Act”, requiring that all state activities and award of funding
be evaluated from watershed impact perspectives and be undertaken consistent
with existing watershed plans.

3. Stormwater Management Authority
Currently, there is no mandate for stormwater management and runoff
control in new development. Under the Land Division Act, the adequacy of
stormwater management systems in proposed plats is reviewed by the county
drain commissioner (or other designated authority) for consistency with
county-adopted standards; however, no parallel requirements exist for other
categories of development.

Locally administered stormwater management standards and review procedures
should be developed and applied to all categories of land use. Such standards
must go beyond flood control considerations to address both water quality
and quantity management. This recommendation could be implemented by amendment
to the Michigan Drain Code, Public Act 40 of 1956, or by stand-alone stormwater
management legislation. Examples from other states are widely available.

4. Watershed Assessment and New Cost Sharing
Land use and development review procedures must be expanded in a way
that fully accounts for the external costs of individual land use decision
to an entire watershed. A process for the equitable distribution of the
associated costs and benefits across watershed communities must be designed
and implemented, so that further infrastructure improvement costs do not
become the responsibility of the local governments and citizens long after
the developer has left the scene.

Other necessary tools to ensure that costs and benefits are equitably
allocated are mechanisms that will allow the cost of protecting critical
areas in one community to be spread over other benefiting local governments.
Approaches could include purchase of development rights by the watershed,
and transfer of development rights across community boundaries within a
watershed into areas where more intense development can be tolerated. These
authorities should be included in any new enabling legislation for watershed
organizations.

Recognizing that Michigan is a strong local home rule state, and local
units of government will retain the right to make local planning decisions
affecting their communities, specific authority to permit cross-jurisdictional
watershed-based overlay zoning will enhance each community’s ability to
protect critical water resources within the context of a broader watershed
planning framework.

In conclusion, these enhanced legal tools, economic incentives and the
prospect of an equitable distribution of the associated costs and benefits,
are among a more comprehensive list of recommendations outlined in the
report entitled Toward Integrated Land Use Planning: A Report to the Michigan
Natural Resources Commission, dated August 1996. They provide a framework
to ensure that the long-term integrity of Michigan’s water resources is
preserved. As stewards of twenty percent of the world’s fresh waters, this
in an obligation we have not only for Michigan citizens, but to a much
larger constituency.

I appreciate this opportunity to provide recommendations to ensure that
future land use decision making in Michigan will more adequately protect
and preserve the delicate resources that define the character of our state.
I thank you again for the opportunity to comment.

Very truly yours,

Janis A. Bobrin
Washtenaw County Drain Commissioner

DRAFT
RESOLUTION TO USE CREEKSHEDS AS UNITS FOR APPROPRIATE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

Whereas:

The City of Ann Arbor expresses, in multiple and enduring ways, an abiding
interest in regional planning, environmental analysis, and intergovernmental
coordination;

Creeksheds are fundamental spatial units that fit together naturally to
form river basins and larger watersheds that offer a natural geometric
and geographic plan for appropriate regional planning, environmental analysis,
and intergovernmental coordination;

Whereas:

Local evidence is already present to suggest interest in this topic;

Basin commissions throughout the world organize multinational interests
along watershed and basin management principles;

Whereas:

The City of Ann Arbor Planning Commission passed the resolution, "That
the City Planning Commission will work to develop an overall Master Plan
update schedule and investigate the concept of creekshed-based planning
in FY2001-2002" (July 10, 2001);

The Natural Features Ordinance Committee was charged by the City Council
to create a Natural Features Master Plan that is nearing completion and
addresses water resources;

Recent changes in State law require the City to update its Master Plan
on a five-year basis;

Resolved: That the City of Ann Arbor Environmental Coordinator:

work with local and regional public and private partners to investigate,
and to implement, creekshed-based environmental analysis, as it is appropriate
to regional planning, broader environmental analysis, and intergovernmental
coordination;

document this work in a section of the annual State of the Environment
report.

Hi Jesse, thanks much for the input. Since this is coming from
the
environmental commission, I think I'll stick with "environmental".
It comes up
again on June 26th before the entire commission for voting.
Bye, Sandy.

Jesse Gordon wrote:

> Thanks for sending this material. My preference would be for the word
> "environmental" to be omiitted from the first bullet of the resolved
> section. I'd like to see the Planning Dept. replace its current division
of
> the city into areas by a division into creeksheds, and your second
whereas
> justifies that.

Other comments were received on an earlier draft and these were discussed
at the previous environmental commission meeting. The item was left
on the table for voting until the June 26 meeting to provide time to accumulate
the comments above, particularly from the NFOC and from the WCDC.